tiltbillings wrote:So there is this dukkha element waiting in the wings for the correct conditions so that it can be experienced. This is what your language is suggesting.

Your own language, Tilt.

Before, you brought up "dukkha element" or "dukkha-dhatu" and "waiting" (in one of the many ill-considered questions above) in the first place.

There is impermanence, unstatisfactoriness (dukkha) and not-self.

tiltbillings wrote:That does not answer the question. You are saying '"Exists" ("there is") does not apply,' but then you talk about nibbana-dhatu not changing, which is language of existence

Non-sense, Tilt.

The Buddha taught "There are, Ananda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements." (M 115)

It does not say "skill in existence (bhava)".

tiltbillings wrote:I am not talking about viewing nibbana as "mine."

Actually you are, Tilt.

Talking about Nibbana as "mine", and constantly pulling up questions about "awakened individuals" and "where is Nibbana when one dies", amounts to the same: personality attachment view.

tiltbillings wrote:I don't drink or smoke funny stuff. And no, you really have not defined dhatu.

Good for you. However, I've defined dhatu several times already.

The worst drunkeness is drunken on untruthfulness, existence and personality attachment view.

tiltbillings wrote:

nibbuti wrote:Dhatu has countless definitions depending on context. In this context I've defined it several times as "potential for experience"

The dhatu is not an element, which is a very poor English word to translate dhatu in that it suggests an existence, but that is not what is going on at all with either dukkha-dhatu or nibbana-dhatu. And it really become meaningless to talk about nibbana in terms other than its actual experience, which is terms of the arahant

Do you even read your own words?

tiltbillings wrote:Yes, I know. You have been less than clear.

Someone else can not remove the less than clear assumptions that eventually lead to the ill-considered questions about "awakened individuals" and locality of Nibbana.

If a stubborn child gets sick due to less then clear assumptions about the weather, a mother or friend can only give advise, but can not remove the less than clear assumptions.

tiltbillings wrote:We can use imperonal language, but it tends to be rather stilted and a bit more prolix than necessary, but the point will still be the same.

In this case, probably your questions will be the same.

There are times when personal language is appropriate, and those when impersonal language is appropriate.

If impersonal language always sounds "stilted" and "prolix" to you, you may ask yourself what is the cause of that.

Last edited by nibbuti on Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

tiltbillings wrote:So there is this dukkha element waiting in the wings for the correct conditions so that it can be experienced. This is what your language is suggesting.

Your own language, Tilt.

Before, you brought up "dukkha element" or "dukkha-dhatu" and "waiting" (in one of the many ill-considered questions above) in the first place.

There is impermanence, unstatisfactoriness (dukkha) and not-self.

Not at all ill-considered

tiltbillings wrote:That does not answer the question. You are saying '"Exists" ("there is") does not apply,' but then you talk about nibbana-dhatu not changing, which is language of existence

Non-sense, Tilt.

Not at all.

The Buddha taught "There are, Ananda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements." (M 115)

It does not say "skill in existence (bhava)".

Then why do you use language that suggests existence?

tiltbillings wrote:I am not talking about viewing nibbana as "mine."

Actually you are, Tilt.

Not at all.

Talking about Nibbana as "mine", and constantly pulling up questions about "awakened individuals" and "where is Nibbana when one dies", amounts to the same: personality attachment view.

The questions are asked because what you are saying suggests them.

I've defined dhatu several times already.

Not at all.

tiltbillings wrote:

nibbuti wrote:Dhatu has countless definitions depending on context. In this context I've defined it several times as "potential for experience"

The dhatu is not an element, which is a very poor English word to translate dhatu in that it suggests an existence, but that is not what is going on at all with either dukkha-dhatu or nibbana-dhatu. And it really become meaningless to talk about nibbana in terms other than its actual experience, which is terms of the arahant

Do you even read your own words?

Of course, and they are to the point.

tiltbillings wrote:Yes, I know. You have been less than clear.

Someone else can not remove your less than clear assumptions that lead to ill-considered questions about "awakened individuals" and locality of Nibbana.

In talking about the "awakened" and nibbana, the words I am using bear no different "assumption" than does this:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you." -- MN 1

tiltbillings wrote:We can use imperonal language, but it tends to be rather stilted and a bit more prolix than necessary, but the point will still be the same.

In this case, only the personality attachment view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) will be the same.

Maybe; however, that is not an issue for me in this.

tiltbillings wrote:You have not shown it to be an ill-considered question. What I have asked is -- in language -- line with the MN 1 sutta you quoted above, so thank you for that.

It's quite contrary to MN 1 sutta I quoted above.

Not that you have shown.

MN 1 sutta says not to infatuate oneself with idealizing or personifying anything perceived or directly experienced from simple earth to Nibbana.

Since I am not doing that, that is not a problem.

But your ill-considered questions like "Does Nibbana exist without Arahants?", "Where is Nibbana when Arahant dies?" and obsession with "awakened individuals" is idealizing and personifying.

These are questions suggested by your language -- your language -- not mine. The problem is that you are not presenting a coherent picture. I am simply asking questions suggested by what are saying trying to get at what it is that you believe.

tiltbillings wrote:What is a dhamma in the context is very much to the point.

Irrelevant.

It is absolutely to the point and another way to look at the point is the "all."

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:In talking about the "awakened" and nibbana, the words I am using bear no different "assumption" than does this:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you." -- MN 1

tiltbillings wrote:If there where at this time no awakened individuals, where is nibbana?

So, where is nibbana when there are no arahants?

So, you are saying that nibbana is a self-existant thing that exists independent of awakened individuals.

So, after the arahant dies, where does the nibbana go?

So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?

So, nibbana is a natural thing existing someplace, somehow, and it can condition other things, but itself has no condition – which means there is nothing by which we can locate it and how can something that has no attributes relative to the conditioned condition that which requires attributes for being conditioned?

Basically, you are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya. Where is it?

So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?

tiltbillings wrote:In talking about the "awakened" and nibbana, the words I am using bear no different "assumption" than does this:

[b] he does not conceive things about Unbinding,

And, of course, the problem with that, for the unawakened, it is a conception about nibbana.

tiltbillings wrote:If there where at this time no awakened individuals, where is nibbana?

So, where is nibbana when there are no arahants?

So, you are saying that nibbana is a self-existant thing that exists independent of awakened individuals.

So, after the arahant dies, where does the nibbana go?

So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?

So, nibbana is a natural thing existing someplace, somehow, and it can condition other things, but itself has no condition – which means there is nothing by which we can locate it and how can something that has no attributes relative to the conditioned condition that which requires attributes for being conditioned?

Basically, you are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya. Where is it?

So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?

And, as i said, these are questions I am asking of you based upon your repeated statements about nibbana-dhatu. These questions, to be quite clear, are not what I believe the suttas teach.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:And, as i said, these are questions I am asking of you based upon your repeated statements about nibbana-dhatu. These questions, to be quite clear, are not what I believe the suttas teach.

Tilt. Your questions are your mind's produce (most originating in discussion with another user). They are not based on my "statements" about nibbana-dhatu (mostly Buddha-quotes).

tiltbillings wrote:And, as i said, these are questions I am asking of you based upon your repeated statements about nibbana-dhatu. These questions, to be quite clear, are not what I believe the suttas teach.

Tilt.

Your questions are your mind's produce (most originating in discussion with another user).

They are not based on my "statements" about nibbana-dhatu (mostly Buddha-quotes).

Of course they are based in what you said.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:And thanks to meditation I fortunately do not have to worry about those pesky dhatu/elements thingies that don't exist, but it is always a wonder watching others trip all over them.

Whatever makes you happy and not worry, Tilt. Don't be too worried though, when you find out that it does not quite agree with reality of the Buddha:

“There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.” - MN 115

Bhikkhus, this person consists of six elements (dhatus). So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? There are the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element. - MN 140.8

Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbana element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…. - A 8.19

tiltbillings wrote:And thanks to meditation I fortunately do not have to worry about those pesky dhatu/elements thingies that don't exist, but it is always a wonder watching others trip all over them.

Whatever makes you happy and not worry, Tilt. Don't be too worried though, when you find out that it does not quite agree with reality of the Buddha:

“There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.” - MN 115

Bhikkhus, this person consists of six elements (dhatus). So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? There are the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element. - MN 140.8

Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbana element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…. - A 8.19

Actually, you neatly make my point about some who stumble over those pesky elements. It is all a matter of the all, of what a dhamma is.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:Actually, you neatly make my point about some who stumble over those pesky elements. It is all a matter of the all, of what a dhamma is.

I can not make your point, and so far you haven't made any point at all. In the first quote you mention SN 35.23 it says

"And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all."If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all' - that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain."

The 'all' here is simply conditioned phenomena. It does not say Nibbana is conditioned phenomena.

“There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.” - MN 115

Further, in the second quote SN 2.26 it says:

"However, friend, I say that without having reached the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering. It is, friend, in just this fathom-high carass endowed with perception and mind that I make known the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world.

The world's end can never be reachedBy means of travelling [through the world]Yet without reaching the world's endThere is no release from suffering.

Both these quotes are meant to inspire mindfulness with the body (rather than Papanca in the mind), in order to transcend suffering. They are not meant to inspire wallowing in mind's universe-creationism Papanca.

English is not my first language. What I meant was, I can not speak for you. You have to take responsibility for what you say and explain it like a grown-up, rather than say "You make my point about someone who..." like a child pointing his finger ad hom.

English is not my first language. What I meant was, I can not speak for you. You have to take responsibility for what you say and explain it like a grown-up, rather than say "You make my point about someone who..." like a child pointing his finger ad hom.

Actually, given your ongoing extended nastiness from one msg to the next (as in this msg), I am not interested.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.